    [House Report 104-469]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    104th Congress                                            Rept. 104-469
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     2d Session                                                      Part 2
    _______________________________________________________________________

                IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT OF 1995

                                    _______

                     March 7, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

    _______________________________________________________________________

      Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                            submitted the following

                                  R E P O R T

                            [To accompany H.R. 2202]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

        The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom
    was referred the bill (H.R. 2202) to amend the Immigration and
    Nationality Act to improve deterrence of illegal immigration to
    the United States by increasing border patrol and investigative
    personnel, by increasing penalties for alien smuggling and for
    document fraud, by reforming exclusion and deportation law and
    procedures, by improving the verification system for
    eligibility for employment, and through other measures, to
    reform the legal immigration system and facilitate legal
    entries into the United States, and for other purposes, having
    considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
    and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
        The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line
    numbers of the introduced bill) are as follows:
        Strike section 356 (page 198, line 17, through page 200,
    line 16), and make all necessary technical and conforming
    changes.
        Strike section 523 (page 270, line 16, through page 273,
    line 10), and make all necessary technical and conforming
    changes.

                  I. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION

        Sections 356 and 523 of H.R. 2202 would have provided the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) authority to hire
    retired Federal employees without a reduction in salary to
    offset the amount of their Federal pensions. Section 356 would
    authorize the employment of up to 300 persons for no more than
    two years to provide support for the Institutional Hearing
    Program, a program established to facilitate the deportation of
    criminal aliens. Section 523 would have authorized the re-
    employment of up to 300 persons for no more than two years to
    assist the INS in the processing of backlogged asylum
    applications. Annuitants re-employed under these provisions
    would have been compensated at full salary in addition to their
    annuities. They would not, however, have accumulated additional
    retirement credit for this service.

    A. Current use of re-employed annuitants by Federal agencies

        OPM reported that Federal agencies currently rely upon
    73,446 re-employed annuitants. These include 1,794 Civil
    Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuitants, 196 Federal
    Employee Retirement System (FERS) annuitants, and 9,588 retired
    military officers. The vast majority of other re-employed
    annuitants are retired enlisted military personnel. Under
    provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8344, if a retired CSRS employee
    becomes re-employed in either elective or appointive office,
    the re-employed annuitant's salary for the position is to be
    reduced by an amount equal to the annuity. Comparable
    provisions govern reductions for FERS employees under a formula
    established in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8421(a). The proposed sections of
    the immigration bill would supersede these reductions, enabling
    annuitants re-employed under these provisions to collect full
    salaries and full pensions during their period of re-
    employment. At minimum, these provisions would establish a
    basis for inequitable treatment of employees who are re-
    employed under current law mandating pension offset and those
    who might be hired under this authority.

    B. Provisions of current regulations

        Under regulations promulgated at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 553.201,
    agencies may petition the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
    for authority to re-employ individual annuitants without a
    reduction in annuities. Re-employment in such individual cases
    is intended for emergency situations, and requires a request
    from the agency's headquarters to the Director of OPM. These
    provisions would bypass OPM scrutiny and grant direct authority
    for a significant number of individuals to perform support
    functions that would not necessarily meet the rigorous
    knowledge, skills, and abilities requirements of current
    regulations governing these situations. Because existing
    statutes and regulations already provide administrative
    authority to grant the exceptions being proposed, the
    administration informed the Committee on the Judiciary that it
    considers these provisions unnecessary.

    C. INS' applications for authority to re-employ annuitants

        The INS is currently hiring numerous Border Patrol
    officers, Immigration Investigators, and Immigration
    Inspectors. It has submitted a request to OPM seeking authority
    to re-employ annuitants to assist with the training of these
    personnel. It has not sought authority to re-employ annuitants
    to perform the functions identified in these provisions.
    Although the INS has a substantial backlog of asylum
    applications, standards for adjudicating asylum cases were
    revised following the adoption of new asylum regulations in
    1990 and the settlement of the court case, American Baptist
    Churches v. Thornburgh. The pool of retired Immigration
    Examiners who had received training in the new asylum
    procedures would be small, so annuitants who would be refired
    to accomplish this function would be required to undergo a
    three-week training program to learn new legal standards for
    the work.
        Although these sections are intended to provide additional
    staffing for the designated functions, they appear likely to
    have wider unanticipated consequences. By eliminating the
    salary reduction that offsets re-employed annuitants' pensions,
    the legislation would enable current employees of these offices
    who might be eligible for retirement to increase their income
    substantially by retiring and returning as re-employed
    annuitants. This factor could present especially severe
    problems for the Institutional Hearing Program, where the
    support envisioned is less technical than the asylum
    adjudication responsibilities and where the agency has a larger
    cadre of senior investigators.
        Beyond the incentives that might adversely affect the
    current workforce, the option to re-employ annuitants without
    reductions in salaries could establish undesirable precedent
    and generate pressure to extend comparable benefits government-
    wide. The precedent would increase incentives for retirement
    among employees having critical skills in a way that would
    expose agencies to the vulnerability of losing valuable
    employees unless the government was willing to pay both
    salaries and retirement annuities for the same work.

    D. Need for the legislation

        These provisions were included in the Immigration in the
    National Interest Act reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary could not identify
    the sponsor of these provisions, provided no hearing record or
    analysis to support inclusion of these provisions in the bill
    as reported, and did not object when informed of the Civil
    Service Subcommittee's findings of their inconsistency with
    other provisions of Title 5, United States Code.

                 II. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTIONS

        H.R. 2202, Sections 356 and 523 were referred to the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The bill was
    marked-up in the Civil Service Subcommittee on March 5, 1996,
    where Subcommittee Member Rep. Burton of Indiana presented an
    amendment to strike sections 356 and 523. This amendment was
    considered and adopted without objection. The Committee met on
    March 7, 1996, and ordered reported the bill H.R. 2202, as
    amended by voice vote.

                 III. COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY

        The Civil Service Subcommittee held no formal hearings on
    H.R. 2202.

                          IV. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

        The amendment simply strikes section 356 and section 523 of
    H.R. 2202, thereby leaving in place existing law.

                           V. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XI

        Pursuant to rule XI, 2(l)(3)(A), of the Rules of the House
    of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause
    2(b)(1) and clause 3(f), the results and findings from those
    oversight activities are incorporated in the recommendations
    found in the bill and in this report.

                      VI. BUDGET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

        This Act provides for no new authorization or budget
    authority or tax expenditures. Consequently, the provisions of
    section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act are not
    applicable.

             VII. COST ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                      VIII. INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT

        In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of
    the House of Representatives, this legislation is assessed to
    have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the
    operations of the national economy.

                          IX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

        The bill was referred to this committee for consideration
    of such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction
    of this committee pursuant to clause 1(g) of rule X of the
    Rules of the House of Representatives. The changes made to
    existing law by the amendment reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary are shown in the report filed by that committee
    (Rept. 104-469, Part 1). The amendments made by this committee
    do not make any changes in existing law.

                          X. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

        On March 7, 1996, a quorum being present, the Committee
    ordered the bill favorably reported.

    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--104th Congress rollcall

        Date: March 7, 1996.
        Final Passage of H.R. 2202, as amended.
        Offered by: Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr. (R-PA).
        Voice Vote: Yea.

        XI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104-1; SECTION
                                   102(B)(3)

        H.R. 2202 as amended by the committee is inapplicable to
    the legislative branch because it does not relate to any terms
    or conditions of employment or access to public services or
    accommodations.

                                         U.S. Congress,
                                   Congressional Budget Office,
                                         Washington, DC, March 7, 1996.
    Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
    Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
    U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
    has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2202, the
    Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, as amended by
    the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on March 7,
    1996. The amendment strikes from H.R. 2202 sections 356 and
    523, which deal with federal employee retirement.
        Attached is a table summarizing the estimated spending and
    revenue effects of H.R. 2202, as amended. CBO estimates that
    striking sections 356 and 523 would increase net direct
    spending savings by $2 million to $4 million a year in 1997
    through 1999. These provisions would permit certain civilian
    and military retirees to collect their full pensions in
    addition to their salary if they are reemployed by the
    Department of Justice to help tackle a backlog of asylum
    applications or support the Institutional Hearing Program. A
    more detailed description of the provisions that were stricken
    is included in the CBO cost estimate sent to Chairman Henry J.
    Hyde of the House Committee on the Judiciary dated March 4,
    1996. That cost estimate also includes detail on the estimated
    budgetary impact of the other provisions of the bill. Striking
    sections 356 and 523 would not affect the cost of
    intergovernmental or private sector mandates in H.R. 2202.
        If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
    pleased to provide them. the CBO staff contact is Wayne
    Boyington.
                Sincerely,
                                               June E. O'Neill,
                                                              Director.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1996      1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION
    Authorizations:
        Estimated Authorizations Level........       129       699       774       856       960       978       996
        Estimated Outlays.....................         0       532       637       940       994       956       976

                                             MANDATORY SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
    Revenues:
        New Criminal Fines and Forfeiture.....         0       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\
        Earned Income Tax Credit..............         0        14        13        12        13        13        13
          Change in Revenues..................         0        14        13        12        13        13        13
    Direct Spending:
        New Criminal Fines and Forfeiture.....         0       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\
        Immigration Enforcement Account.......         0       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\       \1\
        Supplemental Security Income..........         0       -10       -80      -160      -260      -370      -670
        Food Stamps...........................         0         0       -15       -45      -100      -170      -250
        Family Support........................         0        -1       -13       -23       -48       -63       -78
        Medicaid..............................         0        -5      -110      -240      -390      -570      -830
        Earned Income Tax Credit..............         0      -216      -214      -218      -222      -224      -229
          Change in Direct Spending Outlays...         0      -232      -432      -686    -1,020    -1,397    -2,057
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Less than $500,000.